As with any original property that is beloved by fans the world over, the idea of remaking RoboCop was not one that was going to be met with rapturous applause. But unlike a lot of remakes, especially from the ’80s – that most fondly remembered of entertainment eras – there’s actually nuggets of ideas in there that could very well work as a modern update.

And that’s where the RoboCop remake at least partially succeeds at what it sets out to do; update this technology-driven high concept to the modern day, or rather almost a decade and a half into the future, when the idea of robotic limbs and Artificial Intelligence is no longer just science fiction.

The year is 2028 and a multi-billion dollar company called OmniCorp, headed by the sinister Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), is trying to figure out how to persuade people to vote for drone machines to patrol the streets of the U.S. as it’s been working so well – and most importantly for the company, making tons of money – in every other country.

Meanwhile, undercover police officer Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is trying his best to take down a crime lord he has been after for years. When his enemy decides to try and kill him via a car bomb, Alex is left almost dead. In order to save his life, his wife Clara (Abbie Cornish) lets OmniCorp, with the chief help of genius Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), meld her husband’s body with a machine and he becomes the eponymous hero to help clean up the crime-ridden streets of Detroit.

Ironically for what is essentially a blockbuster, it’s not the action that works best about this particular remake/reboot/whatever you want to call it but the social commentary. Heavy-handed though it may be, at least it’s trying for something relevant; the idea of drones patrolling the streets is not an altogether fanciful one anymore and the film sets up the all-pervading, sinister corporation aspect quite well. There’s also intriguing stuff in there about morality, free-will and the lack of humanity in a world potentially run – or at least patrolled – by machine.

The film is framed by a Fox News-esque broadcast fronted by Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson), a not-too-thinly veiled take on the notoriously right-wing opinionated Bill O’Reilly. In these segments the film literally talks straight at camera about how machines would make the world safer and anyone against them is a weak-minded liberal – as you can tell it doesn’t exactly find the film in its most subtle of satirical modes.

It also hints at the idea of a family man being ripped away from his life, still technically alive but not ever able to return to what was normal for him and his loved ones. It never quite delves into that aspect enough to be truly effective and I don’t think Kinnaman is given enough to do to really sell that aspect as a performance but again, the film is at least trying for something meaningful.

The film is ultimately let down, however, by the all-important action sequences. They are merely functional and entirely unmemorable, playing as a cross between Call of Duty and director Jose Padilha’s own Elite Squad movies, without the verve of either. They are messy, too often reliant on CGI and, of course, largely bloodless. Although a film should always be judged on its own merits, this is so intrinsically tied to the original – not least because it consistently makes references e.g. the opening theme music and font, the “I’d buy that for a dollar!” line and so forth – that it’s hard not to compare. The original had a bite, both satirical and action-wise, that this rather po-faced redo sorely lacks.

This is neither the brilliant and clever blockbuster it thinks it is nor the epic disaster a lot of people were expecting. It does have some quite interesting things to say, even if it doesn’t always say them in the most subtle of ways. And while the action is ultimately disappointingly pedestrian, the film at least has more between the ears than a lot of other flashy Hollywood blockbusters, even if it never even gets close to reaching the level of hilarious, ingenious satire attained by the original.

7 Comments

I liked it a lot more than you did Ross, but I agree that the major breakdown comes with the action sequences which are mostly just loud, uninteresting filler. Except for the final testing sequence set to “Hocus Pocus.” I don’t think I’ll ever be able to listen to that song again and not remember ROBOCOP.

I really, really liked this films for its ideas, and for its technical prowess, but it’s rather ‘flat’ in terms of emotion and characters (How can Gary Oldman, Jennifer Ehle AND Micheal Keaton be so…just there. Little in the movie is ‘iconic’, but it’s a thoughtful, even smart remake nonetheless – and that gets a solid pass from me.

I wish they could have figured a more exciting/satisfying end to the film, something that brought up the emotional level or was even surprising in some fashion. The ending felt rushed and rote.

Recent Comments

Jonathan: I always get Millennium Films and Millenium Entertainment mixed up… but both distribute complete trash with some impressive star power. I’m sure these films are relatively high paychecks with short filming commitments and minimal press. Can’t blame...

Jonathan Hardesty: Well, and comparing those films and directors in the context of the new Godzilla film is more interesting than just doling out a star rating and saying that Godzilla was either “good” or “bad.” Or at least I find that discussion more...

Arnold Schizopolis: While watching a film, I often find myself trying to figure out the filmmaker’s vision (themes, concepts and/or thesis) and by the end, wonder if he or she was successful. That’s more challenging for me than whether the film met my expectations....

Jonathan: Yeah, Harrison’s career since ’97 has been astonishing in how much it contrasts with the rest of his career. In the 14 movies he’s starred in since Air Force One, every movie has been god-awful–except 42, which I appreciate for the moderately...

Andrew James: So I like Blade Runner quite a bit – though I seem to be in a minority of people that don’t absolutely adore it. Next Incendies blew me away while Prisoners did very little for me and Enemy was arguably the worst movie of the year. So Villeneuve (for...

Jonathan: In ’95, a Blade Runner sequel came out as a novel – Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human. I bought it for fifty cents with its cover ripped off at a five ‘n dime. I liked it then, although I was also ten years old–and Deckard was not a replicant...

Rick Vance: It adds to the bleak and overbearing nature of the world and the motives and behaviors of the police office if people who are ‘Blade Runner’ hunt without that knowledge (It also isn’t a question so I am glad we all dodged that bullet). (I agree...

kurt: One Last thing: http://badassdigest.com/2015/0 2/27/do-androids-dream-of-blad e-runner-making-sense “In turning dick’s novel into a film (if paul sammon’s book “future noir” is to be believed) hampton fancher wrote a line in a draft either very late in...

Andrew James: What Kurt said. I don’t take so much “stock” out of it as it just happens to have a lot of classic blind spots for me. Out of the 250, there were about 42 that I hadn’t seen which is just about exactly how many Cinecasts we do per year so...

Kurt Halfyard: He talked about it on the show, it’s as good a populist list as any, and easy to find. A mixture of arthouse (La Strada, Fanny And Alexander, L’Avventura) and populist (Shawshank Redemption, Godfather, American Beauty) as well as old (Gold Rush, Rear...

Rick Vance: I am surprised Andrew has so much stock in the imdb top 250.

Matt Gamble: I don’t think I called it exciting outside of a direct comparison to the fucking Oscars, but I still do find it fun. NXT is a waaaaay better product than Raw or Smackdown , and I watch Ring of Honor on occasion (going to a house show later this month). I...

Craig: I can’t believe Matt thinks WWE is still exciting, I still watch it out a weird sense of obligation more than anything else. He should get on Independent companies like Pro Wrestling Guerilla where his mind would be blown. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Sean Kelly: I couldn’t disagree more with Andrew on WYRMWOOD, which I had quite a lot of fun watching at Toronto After Dark (it’s definitely a film that must be seen theatrically with a crowd). In my opinion, it’s not “just another zombie movie”...

Dean Speir: I clearly like Miller’s Crossing a great deal more than you do (and am in vociferous disagreement with your affection for that faker Brian DePalma!), and I think one of the problems is that you’re unfamiliar with the novels of Dashiell Hammett,...

Jandy Hardesty: I have the whole Keaton Blu-ray set from Kino. I’ve watched like three shorts from it, and that’s it. I was planning to mainline it when Karina was born, but guess what – silent films do not work well when you’re sleep-deprived, not even...

Bob Turnbull: I thought there were some funny bits to the underwater sequence – fencing with a swordfish (using another swordfish), the men at work sign, the rinsing of a pot with water while underwater, etc. Not uproarious stuff (and, to be honest, not up to the level I...

Jandy Hardesty: I watched The Navigator for my Blind Spot series a couple of years ago – I liked the meet cute sequences between Keaton and the girl the best (the fumbling around the kitchen, and then the incredible devices they rigged up eventually). The underwater...

Andrew James: J.K. Simmons was pretty much declared the winner of best supporting actor since the movie was released. It’s been a lock since day one; everyone knew it. Moore has always been a pretty safe bet as well.

Matt Gamble: Yeah, but I’ve had years to cultivate this idiotic persona.

Matt Gamble: You’re entering into a world of pain, Andrew. Until you have some actual relevant data to measure it is pointless to declare who or what the Oscar favorite is. You know, stats and such. Calling out an Oscar favorite before anyone has placed a single vote is...

Sean Kelly: The most ironic Best Song performance was Maroon 5 performing “Lost Stars,” since it’s actually a plot point in BEGIN AGAIN that the version performed by Adam Levine is overproduced. For comparison, here is the (better) version of the song from...

David Brook: I didn’t see the awards so can’t comment on the performance there, but I totally agree with Andrew’s comment about it being used in the film. It didn’t settle right at all in context. I thought it was almost as clunkily tacked on as the...